"Dave" wrote in message
...
Nick writes
Would you prefer they referred to you as 'Dear resident of the and
area
formerly part of the county of Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire
or
Essex'?

Quite frankly, that would be better.

Quite frankly that's just ridiculous and merely serves to undermine the
rest of your argument.

I still thiink it would be better whether you think it's ridiculous or not.

Ever heard of the 'London Borough of Bromley'? That's its proper
name -
see the main page of www.bromley.gov.uk

Yeah, I've heard of it, it's just next door. Their website does appear
rather London-enthusiastic now (it never used to). I have never spoken
to
any Bromley councillors who are though.

Well the name of the council will have been the same since it was
formed.

I didn't claim otherewise. My point was that it was a "reluctanct" London
borough judging by the councillors I've spoken to. Note that Bexley dropped
the "London Borough" part of its name for most purposes some years ago, and
now goes under the alias of Bexley Council.

I am sure the vast majority of people in Bexley and Bromley would not
describe themselves as living "in London". All the real Londonders I
have
ever met and worked with would never regard such "outlying" areas as
Bexley
as part of London either.

And there are many residents living in the Boroughs of Bexley and
Bromley who do not regard themselves as living in Bexley or Bromley; but
living in places such as Orpington or Chislehurst. They may have
objected as strongly to being forced to become 'Bexley' or 'Bromley'
residents as you do to being addressed as a Londoner.

Yes, they might've done. So? Let local areas be called what local people
want them to be.

So perhaps we should wind back *all* the 1960s local Government
revisions and go back to having local parish councils only.

Are you saying the 1960s local Government revisions should be fixed in stone
then? Yes, of course we should review them and perhaps change them.

There has been no need to put a county as part of your address for many
years. So the correct postal address would end 'Bromley BR1...' or
'Bexley BR5...'.

Correct, but the postal county is still used extensively and I would
guess
well over 75% of all mail delivered in the UK still has a county field.
So
lots of people will see Bexley and Bromley addressed as Kent (and NEVER
London, which is not acceptable as part of the address).

Of course even when used, postal counties bore no relation to
geographical or political counties. Addresses in Cockfosters would have
a postal town of Barnet, Herts. Despite Cockfosters being in the London
Borough of Enfield and (geographically) in the County of Middlesex.

They bore a very strong relationship with almost all counties at one point.
You've merely picked out some of the (relatively few) that didn't match up.
Most did!

Part of my point in general is that it may well be sensible to include
places such as Dartford and Swanley as part of the GLA administration (so
Dartford station could be added to Zone 6 etc :-), but this is
jeopardised
by the fact that GLA will then want to take away the Kent branding and
call
the residents Londoners. People don't want it, it's not necessary, and I
believe it undermines the history and character of the areas they do this
with.

I think you're being *far* too sensitive.

I care about where I live and the the local people. Not an acceptable
characteristic of a "Londoner" I know.

The old GLC slogan was 'Working for London' and used for many years. It
appeared on everything that they made or did. I really don't see what
the difference is today with the GLA.

The GLC never referred to Bexley as "south east London" did they. The GLA
do, and intentionally so. There is a noticeable shift towards this in the
media as well, so maybe it's unfair to put all the blame the GLA for this;
but they sure as hell don't discourage it.

Let's look at some of the services provided in your area: buses will
have been 'London Transport' since 1933 (and in those days covered a far
wider area than they do today); the local TV news programmes are called
BBC London News and London Tonight; the local evening paper is the
Evening Standard, whose website is called www.thisislondon.co.uk; fires
are extinguished by the London Fire Brigade; crimes investigated by the
Metropolitan Police; even before WWII, water supplied by the
Metropolitan Water Board; accident victims are tended to by the London
Ambulance Service.

I can quote you an equally long list of services provided by Kent-based
agencies and bodies, but so what? Some of yours I would disagree with: I
wouldn't regard the Evening Standard as my local evening paper, and the BBC
only recently resurrected their "London" TV news and radio service, before
that we had proper coverage of the south-east including all home counties.
The editorial area for the London media services generally extends way
beyond GL, and so being served by London media is really not conclusive.

So the links to London are far greater than to places like Margate or
Maidstone.

Only because they have been intentionally severed and/or tampered with, and
continue to be.

I am not anti-GLA, I just don't want the London branding and to be
artificially separated from the Dartford area.

Nothing has changed in that respect since 1965.

I disagree entirely.

Nick